Forum:Blizzard DotA coverage
Blizzard DotA puts us in a strange position. Previous maps, like L2D, reused elements from the "main" SC universe so we didn't need to go off making lots of new articles about element found only on the map. But DotA is introducing a lot of new elements unique to it (items, characters), and it seems right now we're going to make an article for each new element. I'm not sure if they should be getting such emphasis. While they're in StarCraft II (the game) and made by Blizzard, they're also something of a departure from the SC universe. (For example, what is the value of having an article for every item, like the "tome of damage"?) Having an article strikes me as veering toward "needs a wiki of its own" territory. Saying that, I think there's a way we can get something in between. The main article for DotA (and other Blizzard maps) should be much like the articles for other fan maps: general, condensed, and listless as much as possible. However, unlike fan maps, we should create ancillary articles for categories of elements found in the map. So for DotA there would be an article for characters, an article for items, and stuff like that. - Meco (talk, ) 23:47, May 3, 2012 (UTC) :Isn't there a Warcraft DotA Wiki? :I don't think we need to make a decision until Blizzard DotA is out, but I suspect that the game will have as much information in it as Heart of the Swarm itself. It just depends on whether we want to hand off the information to another wiki, or have it here, but be lower priority. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) ) 23:56, May 3, 2012 (UTC) ::There's been some talk in the past about Blizzard DotA being its own product, released commercially. If that was the case, I'd support cutting back on info here. However, under the assumption that it continues to be an official SC2 mod, I think we should be able to include info at our leisure. Certainly we've done it for the Left 2 Die units for instance. ::Of course, an individual might want to form a sub wiki exclusively for the mod. If that happens, we may need to reconsider, but as it's designed by Blizzard specifically for SC2, I'd rather provide information based on it rather than telling users "yes, info's out there, but we're only interested in SC stuff."--Hawki 01:00, May 4, 2012 (UTC) :::Heroes I can buy getting their own articles, since strategy will no doubt fill their pages. But I'm not sure if NPCs and items have enough content individually to merit the same. I figured it be easier just to have one article for items, looking something like this: Previous item --stuff-- Tome of damage Some description of what it does. Some tips on use. File:rank1img.png|Rank 1: x gold. File:rank2img.png|Rank 2: x gold. File:rank3img.png|Rank 3: x gold. Next item --more stuff-- :::On a more general issue, it occurs to me that each Blizzard mod should get its own category tree, just so we can group all the related articles (or just mod-specific articles) together. I think DotA already has one, I'm not sure about L2D or Aiur Chef. L2D can probably use one immediately since there are L2D unit articles. - Meco (talk, ) 01:34, May 4, 2012 (UTC) ::::The category tree isn't too bad an idea, but I'm not sure how much we'd get out of it in regards to individual articles. L2D has been gone through, and we've got a few new units that exist in-universe anyway (it's very much the exception to the mods in that it's effectively a canon mission). Aiur Chef might be an example if you wanted to create a recipe list or something, but I'm afraid that's not really on my list of priorities. ::::Concerning units and the like though, I'd still support them getting their own articles, because even if there's a lack of official info come release, it's still open for strategy on how to deal with them, and on which heroes might benefit from items and somesuch. Not to mention the unit templates that would be created-even NPC units in WoL have expansive stats listed, and I can't see them fitting on one article. I think with items it's good to group them if they're practically the same item (e.g. the tome one), but there simply isn't enough info provided on them to get a sense on how most will work. ::::To sum up, I see DotA as effectively its own continuity. Still part of the site, but kept seperate from mainstream material. An example I can think of is Zombie Mode of the CoD series, which has its own 'story', timeline, etc. Where there's overlap, it's dealt with (e.g. in a gameplay sub-section, how effective is weapon x against zombies). However, it's kept seperate from mainstream continuity (e.g. no in-universe articles on how Nazis created zombies), but its own continuity is maintained (e.g. in-universe article for the pathogen). It's the type of approach I've taken, creating in-universe DotA articles, but keeping it to the set 'verse.--Hawki 02:03, May 4, 2012 (UTC) Having specialized categories might help- though I've noticed a few already. Alockwood1 00:36, May 8, 2012 (UTC) :I agree. We could have categories for DotA units, DotA characters, and maybe DotA items, although I don't think those really need their own articles. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) ) 00:57, May 8, 2012 (UTC) ::I've already noticed a category for items. Alockwood1 00:37, May 9, 2012 (UTC)